Clinical and radiological outcomes of axial lumbar interbody fusion

Paracoccygeal Transsacral Approach: A Rare Approach for Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion

Lumbosacral interbody fusion is a mainstay of surgical treatment for degenerative spinal pathologies causing chronic pain and functional impairment. However, the optimal technique for this procedure remains controversial. Well-established open approaches, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), have historically been the standard of practice. A recent paradigm shift in spinal surgery has led to the investigation of minimally invasive approaches to mitigate tissue damage without compromising outcomes. This extensive review aims to examine current clinical and biomechanical evidence on the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to an axial lumbosacral interbody fusion. Since this technique was first described in 2004, accumulating evidence suggests it results in high fusion rates, consistent improvements in pain and function, reduced perioperative morbidity, and low rates of complication. Although early clinical outcomes have been promising, there is a paucity of comparative data investigating outcomes of the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to traditional alternatives and other minimally invasive techniques. Here, we summarize current evidence and discuss pertinent topics for the spinal surgeon considering this novel approach, including indications, advantages, relevant anatomy, contraindications, and technical considerations.

Effect of Adding Neural Mobilization Versus Myofascial Release to Stabilization Exercises after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To test the effect of adding neural mobilization (NM) versus myofascial release (MFR) to stabilization exercises (SE) on disability, pain, and lumbar range of motion (ROM) in patients with lumbar spine fusion (LSF).

DESIGN

A single blinded, parallel groups, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient public and governmental hospital clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=60) who had undergone LSF were randomly assigned into 3 equal groups.

INTERVENTION

Group I received NM plus SE, group II received MFR and SE, and group III received SE only. Each group visited the hospital 3 times a week for 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale, and back range of motion (BROM) were assessed before starting treatment, immediately after finishing treatment, and 1 month later.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences among the groups regarding the ODI and pain (P<.05) in favor of the study groups, but no statistically significant differences were found among groups regarding the BROM outcome (P>.05). Regarding the within-group effect, statistically significant differences were found in all outcomes after 1 month of treatment, as well as after 1 month of follow-up in each group (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received NM or MFR combined with SE demonstrated better improvement, in favor of the NM group, regarding disability and pain than patients who received SE alone after LSF. No differences were found among the groups regarding lumbar ROM.

Clinical and Radiologic Fate of the Lumbosacral Junction After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the Bottom of a Long Construct in CMIS Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

Introduction:

Surgeons use numerous arthrodesis strategies for fusion of the lumbosacral junction including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). The optimal L5-S1 fusion strategy remains inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to compare the fate of the lumbosacral junction in ALIF versus AxiaLIF patients in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods:

Adult spinal deformity patients, treated with CMIS techniques, with at least 2-year follow-up who underwent AxiaLIF or ALIF at the lumbosacral junction were included. Patients were separated into two groups: AxiaLIF (56 patients) and ALIF (38 patients). Outcome measures included segmental lordosis, sagittal vertical alignment, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, and pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates.

Results:

The ALIF group achieved greater postoperative and delta segmental lordosis, higher delta sagittal vertical alignment, higher delta LL, and lower postoperative pelvic incidence–LL mismatch. The pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates were higher in the AxiaLIF group. Five cases of pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 were seen, all in the AxiaLIF group.

Discussion and Conclusion:

ALIF patients showed more favorable radiographic correction parameters and lower rates of pseudarthrosis, major complications, and revision surgeries. ALIF is the preferred strategy for L5-S1 arthrodesis at a bottom of a long construct.

Recent Advances in Technique and Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Adult Scoliosis

Objective:

Conventional open spinal surgery of adult scoliosis can be performed from anterior, posterior, or combined approach. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) was developed for the purpose of reducing the undesirable effects and complications. This review aimed to make a brief summary of recent studies of the approach and clinical outcomes of MISS in adult scoliosis.

Data Sources:

We conducted a systematic search from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and other literature databases to collect reports of surgical methods and clinical outcomes of MISS in treatment of adult scoliosis. Those reports were published up to March 2017 with the following key terms: “minimally invasive,” “spine,” “surgery,” and “scoliosis.”

Study Selection:

The inclusion criteria of the articles were as followings: diagnosed with adult degenerative scoliosis (DS) or adult idiopathic scoliosis; underwent MISS or open surgery; with follow-up data. The articles involving patients with congenital scoliosis or unknown type were excluded and those without any follow-up data were also excluded from the study. The initial search yielded 233 articles. After title and abstract extraction, 29 English articles were selected for full-text review. Of those, 20 studies with 831 patients diagnosed with adult DS or adult idiopathic scoliosis were reviewed. Seventeen were retrospective studies, and three were prospective studies.

Results:

The surgical technique reported in these articles was direct or extreme lateral interbody fusion, axial lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Among the clinical outcomes of these studies, the operated levels was 3–7, operative time was 2.3–8.5 h. Both the Cobb angle of coronal major curve and evaluation of Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale decreased after surgery. There were 323 complications reported in the 831 (38.9%) patients, including 150 (18.1%) motor or sensory deficits, and 111 (13.4%) implant-related complications.

Conclusions:

MISS can provide good radiological and self-evaluation improvement in treatment of adult scoliosis. More prospective studies will be needed before it is widely used.

Minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral interbody fusion: a ten year single-centre experience

PURPOSE

Our aim was to evaluate mid- and long-term results in a cohort of patients who underwent minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral fixation and to identify clinical and other parameters that can aid in proper patient selection.

METHODS

Over a period of ten years, we assessed 164 patients who had a complete follow-up of a minimum of one year (average 54 months). On follow-up, we recorded clinical status, fusion status, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Lower Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were no intra- or peri-operative complications. Overall clinical success rate was 73.8 %. Only sex (female), working status (still working), body mass index (BMI) (lower) and presence of Modic II changes (absent) were correlated with a good result.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaxial fixation is a safe, minimally invasive technique that can offer good results in patients with single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) at the lumbosacral level, with minimal operative risk.

Evaluating rehabilitation following lumbar fusion surgery (REFS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

The rate of lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is increasing. Clinical recovery often lags technical outcome. Approximately 40 % of patients undergoing LFS rate themselves as symptomatically unchanged or worse following surgery. There is little research describing rehabilitation following LFS with no clear consensus as to what constitutes the optimum strategy. It is important to develop appropriate rehabilitation strategies to help patients manage pain and recover lost function following LFS.

Methods/design

The study design is a randomised controlled feasibility trial exploring the feasibility of providing a complex multi-method rehabilitation intervention 3 months following LFS. The rehabilitation protocol that we have developed involves small participant groups of therapist led structured education utilising principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), progressive, individualised exercise and peer support. Participants will be randomly allocated to either usual care (UC) or the rehabilitation group (RG). We will recruit 50 subjects, planning to undergo LFS, over 30 months. Following LFS all participants will experience normal care for the first 3 months. Subsequent to a satisfactory 3 month surgical review they will commence their allocated post-operative treatment (RG or UC). Data collection will occur at baseline (pre-operatively), 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Primary outcomes will include an assessment of feasibility factors (including recruitment and compliance). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the acceptability and characteristics of a limited cluster of quantitative measures including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and an aggregated assessment of physical function (walking 50 yards, ascend/descend a flight of stairs). A nested qualitative study will evaluate participants’ experiences.

Discussion

This study will evaluate the feasibility of providing complex, structured rehabilitation in small groups 3 months following technically successful LFS. We will identify strengths and weakness of the proposed protocol and the usefulness and characteristics of the planned outcome measures. This will help shape the development of rehabilitation strategies and inform future work aimed at evaluating clinical efficacy.

Trial registration

ISRCTN60891364, 10/07/2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0751-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Axial lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year single-center experience

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis

BACKGROUND

AxiaLIF was initially advocated as a minimally invasive, presacral lumbar fusion approach. Its use has expanded in to adult scoliosis surgeries.

METHODS

Current literature about AxiaLIF for degenerative lumbar surgery and adult scoliosis surgery were reviewed. Anatomy, biomechanical properties, clinical results, and complications were summarized.

RESULTS

Anatomically, AxiaLIF is relatively safe even though traversing blood vessels, and the pelvic splanchnic nerve can be at risk. AxiaLIF can provide significant stiffness compared to the intact spine, but posterior supplementation is recommended. AxiaLIF in the long construct for adult scoliosis surgeries can protect the S1 screw as effectively as pelvic fixation. Successful clinical outcomes after AxiaLIF were reported in the degenerative lumbar spine, adult scoliosis, and spondylolisthesis. It can facilitate a high fusion rate up to 96 % without BMP. Complications include pseudarthrosis, rectal injury, transient nerve irritation, and intrapelvic hematoma.

CONCLUSION

AxiaLIF is a relatively safe procedure, and it provides good clinical results in both short constructs and long constructs for adult scoliosis surgery. For a safer procedure, surgeons should seek out prior colorectal surgical history and review preoperative imaging studies carefully.

An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis

Background

Biomechanical studies have shown that dynamic stabilization restores the neutral zone and stabilizes the motion segment. Unfortunately, there are limitations to clinical measurement of lumbar motion segments when using routine radiographs. Radiostereometric analysis is a 3-dimensional technique and can measure the spinal motion segment more accurately than techniques using plain film radiographs. The purpose of this study was measure and compare the range of motion after dynamic stabilization, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and lumbar discectomy.

Methods

Four patients who underwent lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization (Dynesys; Zimmer Spine, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) for treatment of lumbar spondylosis were compared with 4 patients with a similar diagnosis who were treated by PLF and pedicle screw fixation (PLF group) and 8 patients who had undergone lumbar microdiscectomy (discectomy group) for treatment of radiculopathy. During the surgical procedure, 3 to 5 tantalum beads were placed into each of the operative segments. The patients were followed up postoperatively at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years. At each follow-up time point, segmental motions (flexion, extension, and total sagittal range of motion [SROM]) were measured by radiostereometric analysis.

Results

Flexion, extension, and SROM measured 1.0° ± 0.9°, 1.5° ± 1.3°, and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively, in the Dynesys group; 1.0° ± 0.6°, 1.1° ± 0.9°, and 1.5° ± 0.6°, respectively, in the PLF group; and 2.9° ± 2.4°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, and 4.7° ± 2.2°, respectively, in the discectomy group. No significant difference in motion was seen between the Dynesys and PLF groups or between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in extension. Significant differences in motions were seen between the PLF and discectomy groups and between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in flexion (P = .007) and SROM (P = .002). There was no significant change in the measured motions over time.

Conclusions

In this study a significantly lower amount of motion was seen after dynamic stabilization and PLF when compared with discectomy. A future study with a larger cohort is necessary to examine what effect, if any, these motions have on clinical outcomes.

Minimally invasive trans-sacral approach to L5-S1 interbody fusion: Preliminary results from 1 center and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion has long been used for the treatment of painful degenerative spinal conditions. The anterior approach is not feasible in some patients, and the posterior approach is associated with a risk of neural complications and possibly muscle injury. A trans-sacral technique was developed that allows access to the L5-S1 disc space. The purposes of this study were to investigate the clinical outcome of trans-sacral interbody fusion in a consecutive series of patients from 1 center and to perform a comprehensive review of the literature on this procedure.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles published on trans-sacral axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Articles reviewed included biomechanical testing, feasibility of the technique, and clinical results. The data from our center were collected retrospectively from charts for the consecutive series, beginning with the first case, of all patients undergoing fusion using the AxiaLIF technique. In most cases, posterior instrumentation was also used. A total of 41 patients with at least 6 months' follow-up were included (mean follow-up, 22.2 months). The primary clinical outcome measures were visual analog scales separately assessing back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Radiographic assessment of fusion was also performed.

RESULTS

In the group of 28 patients undergoing single-level AxiaLIF combined with posterior fusion, the visual analog scale scores assessing back and leg pain and mean Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly (P < .01). In the remaining 13 patients, back pain improved significantly with a trend for improvement in leg pain. Reoperation occurred in 19.5% of patients; in half of these, reoperation was not related to the anterior procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the literature found that the AxiaLIF technique was similar to other fusion techniques with respect to biomechanical properties and produced acceptable clinical outcomes, although results varied among studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The AxiaLIF approach allows access to the L5-S1 interspace without violating the annulus or longitudinal ligaments and with minimal risk to dorsal neural elements. It may be a viable alternative to other approaches to interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level. It is important that the patients be selected carefully and surgeons are familiar with the presacral anatomy and the surgical approach.

Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECT

Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) is a novel minimally invasive approach for fusion of L4-5 and L5-S1. This technique uses the presacral space for percutaneous access to the anterior sacrum. The AxiaLIF procedure has the potential to decrease patient recovery time, length of hospital stay, and overall occurrence of surgical complications. It can be used alone or in combination with minimally invasive or traditional open fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications of the AxiaLIF procedure at the authors' institutions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent AxiaLIF surgery between October 2005 and June 2009 at the authors' institutions were identified. The authors retrospectively reviewed these patients' charts, including operative reports and postoperative medical records, to determine what complications were encountered.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients underwent AxiaLIF surgery, with an average follow-up time of 34 months. Sixteen patients (23.5%) experienced a total of 18 complications (26.5%); this group included 8 men and 8 women (mean age 52.1 years). These complications included pseudarthrosis (8.8%), superficial infection (5.9%), sacral fracture (2.9%), pelvic hematoma (2.9%), failure of wound closure (1.5%), transient nerve root irritation (1.5%), and rectal perforation (2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The complication rate associated with AxiaLIF in the present study was relatively low (26.5%). The most common complications were superficial infection and pseudarthrosis. There were 2 cases of rectal perforation associated with AxiaLIF; one case was found intraoperatively and the other presented 4 days postoperatively. Both patients underwent emergency repair by a general surgeon and had no long-term sequelae as a result of the rectal injuries. It is important for surgeons to be aware of the potential for these complications. Many of these complications can probably be avoided with proper patient selection and operative planning. Preoperative MR imaging, a detailed patient physical examination and history, full bowel preparation, and the use of live fluoroscopy can all help to prevent complications with AxiaLIF surgery.